A Buddhist State That Chooses War: What Does Thailand Stand For Now?

Editorial – Traju Bulletin Team

In international relations, a state’s character is revealed not by its slogans but by its conduct when confronted with crisis. Throughout 2025, Thailand has projected the image of a peaceful Buddhist nation, committed to compassion, regional harmony, and international norms. Yet its actions along the Cambodian border tell a far more troubling story. When offered negotiation, Thailand escalated. When presented with diplomacy, it answered with artillery. When provided legal avenues to resolve disputes, it walked away.

This trajectory forces a difficult question: What does Thailand truly stand for now?

On 15 June 2025, Cambodia took the highest peaceful step available under international law by formally petitioning the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to resolve outstanding border disputes concerning the areas of Ta Moan Thom, Ta Moan Tauch, Ta Krabei, and the Mom Bei (Emerald Triangle).¹ Cambodia sought a legal, evidence-based settlement grounded in the Court’s existing jurisprudence. It neither retaliated militarily nor resorted to threats. It chose law.

Thailand refused to participate.

A state confident in its claims does not avoid the courtroom. A state committed to peace does not reject adjudication. In choosing to ignore the ICJ process, Thailand signalled an unwillingness to let neutral law, rather than force, shape the outcome of the territorial dispute.²

The breakdown of peaceful engagement extends beyond the courtroom. For years, the two countries have maintained bilateral frameworks, the Joint Border Committee (JBC) and the General Border Committee (GBC), which exist precisely to prevent escalation. Yet these mechanisms have stagnated under Thailand’s inconsistent participation, slow implementation, and political obstruction.³ Agreements slow-walked, meetings postponed, commitments left unfulfilled, all while military tensions continue to rise.

When a state rejects international adjudication and simultaneously undermines bilateral mechanisms, it leaves dialogue without substance.

By late 2025, even international mediation efforts could not curb Thailand’s military posture. The clashes of July, September, and December 2025 drew urgent diplomatic intervention from Malaysia, China, and the United States. Still, by 12 December, Al Jazeera reported that fighting had entered its fifth consecutive day, with Thai airstrikes and artillery targeting Cambodian territory.⁴ The Guardian described widespread displacement, with hundreds of thousands fleeing the renewed violence.⁵ AP News confirmed that these clashes unfolded as Thailand dissolved its parliament, creating political conditions ripe for nationalist escalation rather than restraint.⁶

A state that ignores regional diplomacy, great-power mediation, and humanitarian warnings is not misunderstood. It is making a deliberate choice.

This choice becomes particularly stark when measured against the Buddhist principles Thailand claims to embody. Buddhism emphasizes non-violence, compassion, truthfulness, and the sanctity of life. Yet those values sit uneasily beside reports of artillery fire in civilian areas, forced displacement, and risks to irreplaceable cultural heritage.

On 12 December, India’s Ministry of External Affairs confirmed that fighting had caused damage to the 1,100-year-old Preah Vihear Temple, a UNESCO World Heritage Site of profound spiritual significance. UNESCO also reiterated that cultural heritage must be safeguarded during armed conflict and reminded states of their obligations under the 1954 Hague Convention. ⁷ A Buddhist state that chooses military escalation over lawful dialogue is not practicing Dharma, it is contradicting it.

Religion without restraint becomes political symbolism. Ethics without action becomes hypocrisy.

Across 2025, Thailand’s pattern of conduct has revealed a consistent choice. Cambodia sought peaceful adjudication. Thailand refused. Cambodia upheld bilateral processes. Thailand stalled. Cambodia cooperated with international mediation. Thailand disregarded it. Cambodia called for peace. Thailand chose airstrikes.

Such behaviour contradicts Thailand’s stated values, undermines ASEAN norms, and violates the spirit of the UN Charter. It destabilizes the region and erodes the credibility of the international order. Above all, it raises a profound question of identity:

If a Buddhist state chooses war over peace, force over dialogue, and aggression over law, what does it stand for now?

Footnotes

ទំនាក់ទំនង